Maybe it’s just me, but more and more, I’m hoping that someone will develop a device or chip that allows me to watch a tennis match with the choice of hearing the natural sounds of the game, minus the comments of broadcast commentators.

For years I've been fortunate to watch Wimbledon championships. It's one of summer’s fabulous pleasures that I try never to neglect.

Now maybe I’m wrong, but aren’t the sports commentators of these events supposed to be neutral or can they just say whatever the hell they want to say?

That may be my problem. Because I thought sports commentators were supposed to try to stay level. I understand they’re human and have their favorites, but if you’re gonna get on a microphone and talk while I enjoy this sport, I need to hear a little less bias. If that’s not so, then what you read below probably isn’t worth your time.

But let me just start by saying that I believe Mary Carillo’s comments are slanted toward anyone who plays opposite Venus or Serena Williams. I’m so sick of the CBS tennis commentator, that if I found a way to slap her through my TV screen, I’d probably give up a year’s salary for that satisfaction. But that’s another kind of chip and I digress.

The phenomenal, unforgettable, thrill-me-to-my-soul 2005 Wimbledon match with Venus Williams vs. Lindsey Davenport brought me much joy this weekend. This match--one that I’ll never forget and hope to own so I can watch it again--was an excellent example of when I so wanted to tune out the voices of the commentators and simply watch the game, listen to the natural sounds of quick rallies, and hear the crowd respond purely and simply as they are.

And Venus was like, “Yeah, I’m #14 (in your book), but I’m coming up here and I’m not only gonna win this thing, but I’m gonna set a few records while I’m at it; and I’m gonna give you the excitement you’ve longed for in a tennis tournament!" But I digress.

Carillo’s comments ran non-stop during the first set because Davenport won it and signs were clear that Davenport (#1) would wrap this championship up in two sets. When the score was 5 4 Davenport, the male commentator announced, "Venus Williams, in her last service." NOT!!

And then, it got quiet. And I began to notice that when Venus hit an amazing shot, returned an excellent Davenport shot, or began to even the score, Carillo was at a loss for words. I was actually able to enjoy the pure beauty of two excellent women doing what they love and do best! It was marvelous.

However, when Davenport began to turn the tide, Carillo chimed in, almost speaking for Davenport, making comments that a competitor computes as strategy. She’s definitely in Davenport’s camp; there’s no doubt about that. And definitely not in William’s.

But are we listeners supposed to know that? I really don’t want to know that. I want there to be an evenhanded commentary.

Another thing that got me about Carillo’s comments was that as she described the strong defense of the Williams sisters, she affirmed the variety of shots they were able to execute, but then, she said that strong defense is also what gets them into to trouble. She used the phrase “they can get away with that.” Get away with, Mary? What are you implying?

Okay, I let that one slide.

Then Carillo complains about the noises Venus makes when she’s in the zone. She says stuff like, “The noisier she [Venus] gets, the stronger her game.”

Once when Venus makes a clever shot, outwitting Davenport, Carillo says, “She got noisier about it as well.”

She even adds that the noise level between last Thursdays match when Venus faced Maria Sharapova and refers to the sounds from both players as sounding like “jungle cat fight.” Jungle...???

Okay, Mary. I can’t let that one slide!

Then Carillo says that Davenport’s got more variety than Sharapova. “Point after point of power and precision," implying that what Venus did to Sharapova wouldn’t work on Davenport. She says something like, "You can't use that on Davenport." Carillo, are you implying that Venus is some kind of trickster?? Maybe it's just me.

Then from time to time, when Davenport made an error, Carillo offered excuses. When Venus executes a great shot, she expresses surprise, or is completely silent.

Then both commentators (sorry I don’t know the other commentator’s name) talk about how the reason Venus maybe playing better is because she’s “accessory-free.” Take note Venus, they almost chorus!

They also comment on Williams’ choice to have a career in fashion as well as tennis, saying, “If you’re gonna be a tennis player, you’re gonna have to work.” As though she hasn’t been working. I mean, you don’t get to finals at Wimbledon without having worked. It’s like they want to penalize her for doing more with her gifts. Give the girl credit.

But the obvious thing is that when Davenport made points or was playing well, you heard lots of comments from Carillo. They ranged from fortifying comments that Davenport might be thinking or strategizing about how to outwit Venus.

Or there were comments that the Williams strategy might not be on the up and up. Maybe it's just me. In wrap-up comments, stunned by Williams' win, both ask, “Is this legitimate? Will this be a one-time thing?” Again, what are you guys implying.

When Williams made points or played well, you heard nothing--except the glorious pop of balls against rackets, guttural sounds (that most tennis players make), rubber shoes against grass, and best of all, no comments from the peanut gallery. How sweet!

The bottom line is that Venus and Serena Williams don't fit into the tennis association's theory of what a number one player should do and be, especially off court. But Carillo's comments were way out of order and producers would do us a favor if her comments were unheard. She might even consider apologizing to Venus Williams for those crass words.

But maybe it’s just me. Anybody have ideas about that listening chip I need? Let me know!